Demolition by Neglect

[sheclown]

Demolition by Neglect

Demolition by neglect is defined as the destruction of a building through abandonment or lack of maintenance. What can concerned citizens and preservations do about buildings that are destroyed by deliberate neglect?

There are a number of scenarios that contribute to the neglect of historic properties, including impoverished owners, difficulties arising from unsettled estates, absentee landlords or simply an uncaring attitude on the part of an owner. However there is an even more disturbing trend found throughout the state: an owner's intentional use of "demolition by neglect" to circumvent legislation aimed at protecting historic properties.

"If you won't let me tear it down, then I'll let it fall down." Across Connecticut, preservationists have encountered numerous cases in which municipalities, institutions, developers and individual property owners are neglecting their historic properties by choice. Sometimes neglect is precipitated by the desire to be rid of the building or as a way of avoiding rehabilitation costs while determining the best use of the property. Some of these property owners, while clearly in the minority, want to clear the land for commercial ventures that will profit in part from the special characteristics of the historic district. This intentional use of "demolition by neglect" to evade regulations is of great concern.

In Connecticut, local historic district legislation and the Connecticut Environmental Protection Act have provided preservationists with two potentially powerful tools to assist in the struggle to preserve individual buildings and districts. However, a number of property owners, including individuals, institutions and municipalities, have knowing allowed buildings to deteriorate in the hope that within a short time courts can be persuaded to rule that it is no longer feasible to rehabilitate the structures. In Bridgeport, the owners of the 1908 Curtis Mansion, in hopes of erecting a 12 -story apartment building neglected the building by leaving doors and windows open, failing to shut off water and stripping woodwork. The owners argued that building's condition was too poor to warrant its rehabilitation. Despite a lawsuit under the Connecticut EPA to prevent demolition and an organized neighborhood preservation effort, the judge in the suit found that it was no longer feasible to rehabilitate the building. Overlooked was the fact that the damage to the building was a direct result of the owner and their refusal to maintain and secure the building.

State agencies and municipalities have also been responsible for allowing buildings to deteriorate through neglect. The State Armory in Norwich was facing demolition when the Environmental Protection Act was invoked in an attempt to the save the building. The state had let the building become derelict and the city was seeking a demolition permit. The injunction was denied when the judge ruled that the fire code violations and possible structure problems were too great and that photographs revealed that the interior and exterior were clearly uninhabitable. As has been discovered, legislation aimed at protecting the public interests is all too easily circumvented by parties whose financial interests exceed their appreciation of our cultural heritage.

Judges who are confronted with visible evidence of threats to public health and safety and with evidence that rehabilitation costs will be enormous are nearly bound to rule that restoration is not feasible. The fate of the building is the same, no matter how willful the neglect that brought the building to such a state.

Some owners, who want to avoid the outcry of public censure and possible conflict sometimes provoked by more traditional (violent) forms of demolition, turn to demolition by neglect when they want to clear a site. Institutions and state agencies have found it useful to allow a building to deteriorate so badly they will "have to" tear it down.

What can you do? Communities can begin to enforce existing laws requiring that buildings be secured and the courts need to consider the argument that demolition by neglect is contrary to the intent of the State's Environmental Protection Act. Public pressure has been proven to be beneficial. Preservationists need to mobilize and educate building inspectors and local officials about existing laws and encourage them to enforce the law. Existing legislation protecting public health and safety often renders illegal such practices as opening unoccupied buildings to the vagrancy and vandalism.

A number of other states have laws specifically addressing demolition by neglect. South Dakota's statute gives localities the power to prevent demolition by neglect by enacting an ordinance that makes willful neglect of a historic property a misdemeanor. In West Virginia, local landmark commissions may establish standards "for the care and maintenance of certified landmarks" and withdraw certification is such positive maintenance is not continued. Other states, however, do not have enabling legislation which gives them sufficient power to prevent demolition by neglect. In California, despite the lack of any state authority for demolition by neglect provisions, several municipalities have incorporated such provisions into their local ordinances.

For more information on Connecticut's Environmental Protection Act look under Preservation Help's Protecting Historic Resources on the navigation menu to the left.

Below are links to other municipalities which have Demolition by Neglect Ordinances or regulations which address Demolition by Neglect.

http://www.cttrust.org/index.cgi/1050

[sheclown]

In Washington DC, the city -- when it has determined that the owner is guilty of demolition by neglect -- goes into the property and makes repairs and charges it to the homeowner

http://www.dcwatch.com/archives/council13/13-25.htm

"(b) If the owner does not make repairs within a reasonable period of time the Mayor or his agents may enter the property and make such repairs as are necessary to prevent demolition by neglect. The costs of such work shall be charged to the owner, and may be levied by the District of Columbia as a special assessment against the property. The Mayor or his agents may enter the property for purposes of this section upon obtaining an order from the D.C. Superior Court."

[iloveionia]

^ Hoo Rah.
What a concept.
One I don't think we will ever see here.
The "help not hinder" concept doesn't exist unfortunately.

[Timkin]

Well never is a very long time.. but perhaps Future City Leaders, Council , Code Enforcement, need to start taking a good hard look at the number of demolitions that could have been avoided ( I am sure they are staggering , in costs) and make property owners responsible for maintaining their structures, commercial or residential .

[Garden guy]

Maybe...just maybe if we live in an historical neighborhood and a home is failing...maybe if the owner is just letting it fail....can the city fix the house and charge the owner?...i think once you move into an historal neighborhood you have a requirement to keep up that house. I've got a house next door..dad died and noone has done a thing...it's been 5 years now...the natives have stolen the aluminum siding...windows are broken...you can actually see inside from the outside..through a whole that has rotted into the side of the house. Do we really have to keep looking at this or is there something we can do. I've offered to help..even buy the place...the brothers want well over $100,000 for it and it may be worth $20,000...what to do?